Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical.

At 9/10/2016 11:53:47 AM, Furyan5 wrote:Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical.

The concept of "nothing" has an uncanny history, and in tracing the essence of these questions back to our framing of that concept, I think the problem reveals itself as having resonances much more personally striking than many of us are willing to address. The ontotheological concept of "nothing" is one I see as having a historical function in epistemology similar to that which "hell" has had ethically. Religion is philosophical eugenics, and these two concepts are profound mirrors of the roots of this in various fields. The deconstruction of philosophy is the unwinding of the tense relationship between time and Being, and in service of this I advocate a militant agnosticism which will gradually reveal the fundamentally immortal (atemporal, immaterial) nature of ourselves and our environment. Once passivity is democratized, and activity sublimated, the kingdom of ends can become a lived metric, rather than a projected state of affairs.

At 9/10/2016 11:53:47 AM, Furyan5 wrote:Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical.

Ironically, this is an illogical statement in itself as it violates the law of non-contradiction. To se what I mean let's break down what you're saying into a logic statement, by defining X as theism your post can be translated as:

"Based on the fact that the universe is precisely the age that it is, we can conclude that if you say X then what you are saying is invalid and if you say anything not X then what you are saying is invalid"

So we know right away that something is wrong here because you are saying that no matter whether someone says 'X' or they say 'not X' then what they say is, according to you, illogical. As pointed out before this violates the law of non-contradiction and your post itself is therefore illogical. But all this shows it that your original premise is nonsense, we can dig a bit deeper than that.

You could perhaps say that a particular theistic view which requires the age of the universe to be less than 13.8 billion years is illogical. A literal interpretation of most holy books would qualify of course, so yes a literal interpretation is clearly illogical. You would never get that through to them though because they would simply reject the premise that the universe is that old in the first place. That isn't the important part though because although we can all agree that group of people are sadly misinformed at best, they are also a very small and quickly shrinking minority.

Most theists take a less direct approach in linking their beliefs to their books, and those that are willing to accept that the universe is old can easily say that god simply created the universe that long before creating you. They'll even support this by making the assertion that god is 'outside time' (you and I have no idea what they mean by this, but dom't feel bad because they have no idea what they mean by this either). I don't think this is true and it certainly isn't supported by evidence but it is an internally consistant statement, albiet an unfalsifiable one.

At 9/10/2016 11:53:47 AM, Furyan5 wrote:Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical.

Ironically, this is an illogical statement in itself as it violates the law of non-contradiction. To se what I mean let's break down what you're saying into a logic statement, by defining X as theism your post can be translated as:

"Based on the fact that the universe is precisely the age that it is, we can conclude that if you say X then what you are saying is invalid and if you say anything not X then what you are saying is invalid"

So we know right away that something is wrong here because you are saying that no matter whether someone says 'X' or they say 'not X' then what they say is, according to you, illogical. As pointed out before this violates the law of non-contradiction and your post itself is therefore illogical. But all this shows it that your original premise is nonsense, we can dig a bit deeper than that.

To say that "it's false that X is false" does not necessitate that it is true, outside of logical analysis, which precisely dictates that it is only concerned with propositions with a T or F value. This is what is meant when we say that a statement is "not even wrong."

Most theists take a less direct approach in linking their beliefs to their books, and those that are willing to accept that the universe is old can easily say that god simply created the universe that long before creating you. They'll even support this by making the assertion that god is 'outside time' (you and I have no idea what they mean by this, but dom't feel bad because they have no idea what they mean by this either). I don't think this is true and it certainly isn't supported by evidence but it is an internally consistant statement, albiet an unfalsifiable one.

It's a truism that abstract religious dogma is unfalsifiable. What is more interesting to me, is how many of the beliefs held by atheists take on the same structural assumptions, forming a Spinozan ontology which rejects specific tenets of various religions while unknowingly inheriting their underlying ontological paradigms. The concept of "something from nothing" is a flagrant example, as indicated by the OP.

At 9/10/2016 11:53:47 AM, Furyan5 wrote:Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical.

Ironically, this is an illogical statement in itself as it violates the law of non-contradiction. To se what I mean let's break down what you're saying into a logic statement, by defining X as theism your post can be translated as:

"Based on the fact that the universe is precisely the age that it is, we can conclude that if you say X then what you are saying is invalid and if you say anything not X then what you are saying is invalid"

So we know right away that something is wrong here because you are saying that no matter whether someone says 'X' or they say 'not X' then what they say is, according to you, illogical. As pointed out before this violates the law of non-contradiction and your post itself is therefore illogical. But all this shows it that your original premise is nonsense, we can dig a bit deeper than that.

To say that "it's false that X is false" does not necessitate that it is true, outside of logical analysis, which precisely dictates that it is only concerned with propositions with a T or F value. This is what is meant when we say that a statement is "not even wrong."

Most theists take a less direct approach in linking their beliefs to their books, and those that are willing to accept that the universe is old can easily say that god simply created the universe that long before creating you. They'll even support this by making the assertion that god is 'outside time' (you and I have no idea what they mean by this, but dom't feel bad because they have no idea what they mean by this either). I don't think this is true and it certainly isn't supported by evidence but it is an internally consistant statement, albiet an unfalsifiable one.

It's a truism that abstract religious dogma is unfalsifiable. What is more interesting to me, is how many of the beliefs held by atheists take on the same structural assumptions, forming a Spinozan ontology which rejects specific tenets of various religions while unknowingly inheriting their underlying ontological paradigms. The concept of "something from nothing" is a flagrant example, as indicated by the OP.

Honestly I'm surprised someone actually gets where I'm going with this. Any ideas how I can resolve this dilemma i find myself in? An eternal creator is as illogical as a universe coming from nothing.

At 9/10/2016 5:28:31 PM, Furyan5 wrote:Honestly I'm surprised someone actually gets where I'm going with this. Any ideas how I can resolve this dilemma i find myself in? An eternal creator is as illogical as a universe coming from nothing.

The problem was identified by Heidegger (who identified the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" as one of primary importance) who saw the role of our understanding of Being itself as underlying all subsequent inquiry. By stepping past the concept of Being as self-evident, most philosophies have taken the term to be like any other general abstract word. As such, many different things would have "Being" in the same sense that a group of animals could all be "ducks". Understanding the word in this sense means that by spreading Being thinly over all entities, we arrive at an anemic and levelling view of "the universe" as a self-enclosing whole, which, however, the "Nothing which nothings" always nags at from outside, in a way which can never be totally resolved. The nothingness must be rendered totally void in order for the universe to be totalising, but it can't be a mere void - it must be one "which nothings" in order for the totality of the universe to gain leverage, to maintain itself as a totality.

This reveals the problem as a structural offshoot of our fundamental framing of the concept of Being, and not a causal problem which can be solved by switching out one causal agent for another. It's a certain "positive charge" which has been taken up by "nothingness itself" in the common consciousness, which causes it to haunt us from all angles.

At 9/10/2016 5:28:31 PM, Furyan5 wrote:Honestly I'm surprised someone actually gets where I'm going with this. Any ideas how I can resolve this dilemma i find myself in? An eternal creator is as illogical as a universe coming from nothing.

The problem was identified by Heidegger (who identified the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" as one of primary importance) who saw the role of our understanding of Being itself as underlying all subsequent inquiry. By stepping past the concept of Being as self-evident, most philosophies have taken the term to be like any other general abstract word. As such, many different things would have "Being" in the same sense that a group of animals could all be "ducks". Understanding the word in this sense means that by spreading Being thinly over all entities, we arrive at an anemic and levelling view of "the universe" as a self-enclosing whole, which, however, the "Nothing which nothings" always nags at from outside, in a way which can never be totally resolved. The nothingness must be rendered totally void in order for the universe to be totalising, but it can't be a mere void - it must be one "which nothings" in order for the totality of the universe to gain leverage, to maintain itself as a totality.

This reveals the problem as a structural offshoot of our fundamental framing of the concept of Being, and not a causal problem which can be solved by switching out one causal agent for another. It's a certain "positive charge" which has been taken up by "nothingness itself" in the common consciousness, which causes it to haunt us from all angles.

Informative, but not really helpful. Perhaps "nothing" is a dimension beyond our comprehension. Like flat-man from flat-world can't percieve 3D world. A singular dimension with no length, width or height and without time. And our universe exists in a tear in "nothing". But what could cause such a tear in the fabric of "nothing"?

At 9/10/2016 5:28:31 PM, Furyan5 wrote:Honestly I'm surprised someone actually gets where I'm going with this. Any ideas how I can resolve this dilemma i find myself in? An eternal creator is as illogical as a universe coming from nothing.

The problem was identified by Heidegger (who identified the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" as one of primary importance) who saw the role of our understanding of Being itself as underlying all subsequent inquiry. By stepping past the concept of Being as self-evident, most philosophies have taken the term to be like any other general abstract word. As such, many different things would have "Being" in the same sense that a group of animals could all be "ducks". Understanding the word in this sense means that by spreading Being thinly over all entities, we arrive at an anemic and levelling view of "the universe" as a self-enclosing whole, which, however, the "Nothing which nothings" always nags at from outside, in a way which can never be totally resolved. The nothingness must be rendered totally void in order for the universe to be totalising, but it can't be a mere void - it must be one "which nothings" in order for the totality of the universe to gain leverage, to maintain itself as a totality.

This reveals the problem as a structural offshoot of our fundamental framing of the concept of Being, and not a causal problem which can be solved by switching out one causal agent for another. It's a certain "positive charge" which has been taken up by "nothingness itself" in the common consciousness, which causes it to haunt us from all angles.

Informative, but not really helpful. Perhaps "nothing" is a dimension beyond our comprehension. Like flat-man from flat-world can't percieve 3D world. A singular dimension with no length, width or height and without time. And our universe exists in a tear in "nothing". But what could cause such a tear in the fabric of "nothing"?

Just a thought!

Surely this can only be a metaphor, though, since there wouldn't be anything to perceive at all. It would just be to subsume all the other questions into a metaphor of "tearing" behind which the same problem would subsist: the infinite deferral of the "why?" which can be posed to any given proposition. At some point, we must be moved to question whether perhaps we look in vain for some proposition to which it cannot apply, and rather if instead we should interrogate the nature of this mysterious direction of questioning itself.

At 9/10/2016 5:28:31 PM, Furyan5 wrote:Honestly I'm surprised someone actually gets where I'm going with this. Any ideas how I can resolve this dilemma i find myself in? An eternal creator is as illogical as a universe coming from nothing.

The problem was identified by Heidegger (who identified the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" as one of primary importance) who saw the role of our understanding of Being itself as underlying all subsequent inquiry. By stepping past the concept of Being as self-evident, most philosophies have taken the term to be like any other general abstract word. As such, many different things would have "Being" in the same sense that a group of animals could all be "ducks". Understanding the word in this sense means that by spreading Being thinly over all entities, we arrive at an anemic and levelling view of "the universe" as a self-enclosing whole, which, however, the "Nothing which nothings" always nags at from outside, in a way which can never be totally resolved. The nothingness must be rendered totally void in order for the universe to be totalising, but it can't be a mere void - it must be one "which nothings" in order for the totality of the universe to gain leverage, to maintain itself as a totality.

This reveals the problem as a structural offshoot of our fundamental framing of the concept of Being, and not a causal problem which can be solved by switching out one causal agent for another. It's a certain "positive charge" which has been taken up by "nothingness itself" in the common consciousness, which causes it to haunt us from all angles.

Informative, but not really helpful. Perhaps "nothing" is a dimension beyond our comprehension. Like flat-man from flat-world can't percieve 3D world. A singular dimension with no length, width or height and without time. And our universe exists in a tear in "nothing". But what could cause such a tear in the fabric of "nothing"?

Just a thought!

Surely this can only be a metaphor, though, since there wouldn't be anything to perceive at all. It would just be to subsume all the other questions into a metaphor of "tearing" behind which the same problem would subsist: the infinite deferral of the "why?" which can be posed to any given proposition. At some point, we must be moved to question whether perhaps we look in vain for some proposition to which it cannot apply, and rather if instead we should interrogate the nature of this mysterious direction of questioning itself.

Why ask why? It goes towards purpose. Life is fleeting. In a hundred years, nobody will care that I lived. In a thousand, nobody will remember. This entire planet can be destroyed in the blink of an eye. Not only possible, but inevitable. So what's the point of it all? Is there a purpose? A bigger picture? Surely someone has an idea, a theory. Point me in a direction.

At 9/10/2016 11:53:47 AM, Furyan5 wrote:Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical.

Science does not say that the universe was created by an uncaused cause. Is't just that we can't go far enough back in the history of the universe to find the cause. The laws of physics break down at the beginning of the universe. Plus, since we can't possibly find the cause of the creation of the universe (again, the laws of physics break down), physicists simply don't care about the cause. it is of no consequence, and it doesn't effect our universe, so the cause simply does not matter. We can't find it, and there is no reason to find it. Although, if there was a way to see how the universe was created, I'm sure we would be more interested.

At 9/10/2016 11:53:47 AM, Furyan5 wrote:Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical.

Science does not say that the universe was created by an uncaused cause. Is't just that we can't go far enough back in the history of the universe to find the cause. The laws of physics break down at the beginning of the universe. Plus, since we can't possibly find the cause of the creation of the universe (again, the laws of physics break down), physicists simply don't care about the cause. it is of no consequence, and it doesn't effect our universe, so the cause simply does not matter. We can't find it, and there is no reason to find it. Although, if there was a way to see how the universe was created, I'm sure we would be more interested.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is to never stop questioning.

The cause may not matter to others, but it does to me. Everything that was, is and will be, every event that did occur, is occurring or will occur, is dependant on that one thing. Saying it is of no consequence is probably the biggest understatement in the universe.

At 9/10/2016 5:03:20 PM, sdavio wrote:To say that "it's false that X is false" does not necessitate that it is true, outside of logical analysis, which precisely dictates that it is only concerned with propositions with a T or F value. This is what is meant when we say that a statement is "not even wrong."

Right, like the X of my example. The one where theists believe X and atheists do not believe X. I'm glad you understand.

At 9/10/2016 5:03:20 PM, sdavio wrote:To say that "it's false that X is false" does not necessitate that it is true, outside of logical analysis, which precisely dictates that it is only concerned with propositions with a T or F value. This is what is meant when we say that a statement is "not even wrong."

Right, like the X of my example. The one where theists believe X and atheists do not believe X. I'm glad you understand.

Theist believe X and atheists do not believe X, they believe Y.The fact that I need to explain something so obvious tells me you will never grasp the rest of my argument. Please refrain from commenting.

At 9/10/2016 11:53:47 AM, Furyan5 wrote:Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical.

Science does not say that the universe was created by an uncaused cause. Is't just that we can't go far enough back in the history of the universe to find the cause. The laws of physics break down at the beginning of the universe. Plus, since we can't possibly find the cause of the creation of the universe (again, the laws of physics break down), physicists simply don't care about the cause. it is of no consequence, and it doesn't effect our universe, so the cause simply does not matter. We can't find it, and there is no reason to find it. Although, if there was a way to see how the universe was created, I'm sure we would be more interested.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is to never stop questioning.

The cause may not matter to others, but it does to me. Everything that was, is and will be, every event that did occur, is occurring or will occur, is dependant on that one thing. Saying it is of no consequence is probably the biggest understatement in the universe.

What came before the universe does not effect the universe today. It is of no consequence. Plus, there is no way to see to or past the beginning of the universe, as the laws of physics break down. Whether it matters to you or not, the simple fact is that we will never know.

That does not mean that people have simply stopped questioning how the universe came to be. It is an interesting subject, and there are multiple suggestions. The problem is that there is no way to test any of these suggestions, so unless we acquire the means to, there is no way or reason to try.

Is nothing comes from nothing 'illogical' or is it an empirical observation? I will have a go at part of the OP.

The reason the bb happened 13.8 b years ago is that it took 13.8 b years for matter to organise itself into brings that ask that question on internet forums. When the bb happened relative to us wondering about it is not very mysterious - it's one thing the anthropic principle is good at answering.

If we can conceive of time not existing pre-bb then perhaps the mystery of 'when' or 'why then' is almost sort of solved!

On the big issue of something from nothing, it must be we are missing a piece of the puzzle. There is something we don't know, or something we think we know that is wrong. We can either stop looking or carry on looking for the missing piece or our error. In other words we can shrug our shoulders and say 'goddidit' or some other newage cop out or carry on thinking and doing science. Free will being what it is, I know which I prefer!

At 9/11/2016 5:47:24 PM, keithprosser wrote:Is nothing comes from nothing 'illogical' or is it an empirical observation? I will have a go at part of the OP.

The reason the bb happened 13.8 b years ago is that it took 13.8 b years for matter to organise itself into brings that ask that question on internet forums. When the bb happened relative to us wondering about it is not very mysterious - it's one thing the anthropic principle is good at answering.

If we can conceive of time not existing pre-bb then perhaps the mystery of 'when' or 'why then' is almost sort of solved!

On the big issue of something from nothing, it must be we are missing a piece of the puzzle. There is something we don't know, or something we think we know that is wrong. We can either stop looking or carry on looking for the missing piece or our error. In other words we can shrug our shoulders and say 'goddidit' or some other newage cop out or carry on thinking and doing science. Free will being what it is, I know which I prefer!

Well they are mistaken in one aspect. Time is a fundamental aspect or agent of change. Time would have to exist, even if just a fraction of a second before the bb for change to occur. If it existed before the bb for a fraction of a second, why not longer? Why then is not solved. Even if time began at bb, why did it not happen before or since? A once off event occurring for unknown reasons at an unexplained time with no purpose resulting in at least one planet tailored perfectly for the evolution of life. Miraculous? Designed? Chance just doesn't cut it.

A deeply rooted concept in everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. Physicists have now shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one.

To put it into the context of this discussion, neither the theists as atheists views are necessarily flawed because from the perspective of quantum mechanics, it is possible to have nothing became something because the effect may occur before the cause. We could in essence be a product of ourselves, the effect of an event that we ourselves cause in the future rippling back into time through the quantum-mechanical universe to create the universe that we know today. The reason why existence may seem a paradox is because existence may well be its own paradox.

A deeply rooted concept in everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. Physicists have now shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one.

To put it into the context of this discussion, neither the theists as atheists views are necessarily flawed because from the perspective of quantum mechanics, it is possible to have nothing became something because the effect may occur before the cause. We could in essence be a product of ourselves, the effect of an event that we ourselves cause in the future rippling back into time through the quantum-mechanical universe to create the universe that we know today. The reason why existence may seem a paradox is because existence may well be its own paradox.

Have you considered the possibility that this event we cause in the future is intentional?

A deeply rooted concept in everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. Physicists have now shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one.

To put it into the context of this discussion, neither the theists as atheists views are necessarily flawed because from the perspective of quantum mechanics, it is possible to have nothing became something because the effect may occur before the cause. We could in essence be a product of ourselves, the effect of an event that we ourselves cause in the future rippling back into time through the quantum-mechanical universe to create the universe that we know today. The reason why existence may seem a paradox is because existence may well be its own paradox.

Have you considered the possibility that this event we cause in the future is intentional?

Whether intentional or accidental makes no difference to the hypothesis. With that said, to do such a thing intentionally could in effect be a form of universal genocide as it is unlikely that the universe would survive an event that would cause for the universe to be formed.

At 9/10/2016 11:53:47 AM, Furyan5 wrote:Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical. : :

Some of God's characters were made to ask questions without believing the answers.

At 9/10/2016 11:53:47 AM, Furyan5 wrote:Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical.

Ironically, this is an illogical statement in itself as it violates the law of non-contradiction. To se what I mean let's break down what you're saying into a logic statement, by defining X as theism your post can be translated as:

"Based on the fact that the universe is precisely the age that it is, we can conclude that if you say X then what you are saying is invalid and if you say anything not X then what you are saying is invalid"

So we know right away that something is wrong here because you are saying that no matter whether someone says 'X' or they say 'not X' then what they say is, according to you, illogical. As pointed out before this violates the law of non-contradiction and your post itself is therefore illogical. But all this shows it that your original premise is nonsense, we can dig a bit deeper than that.

To say that "it's false that X is false" does not necessitate that it is true, outside of logical analysis, which precisely dictates that it is only concerned with propositions with a T or F value. This is what is meant when we say that a statement is "not even wrong."

It's even simpler than that... Outside of logical analysis the law of non-contradiction does not even apply.

Of course, the OP takes logic for granted in dismissing "something form nothing" as logically impossible, so he's not exactly in the position to ignore logic.

Most theists take a less direct approach in linking their beliefs to their books, and those that are willing to accept that the universe is old can easily say that god simply created the universe that long before creating you. They'll even support this by making the assertion that god is 'outside time' (you and I have no idea what they mean by this, but dom't feel bad because they have no idea what they mean by this either). I don't think this is true and it certainly isn't supported by evidence but it is an internally consistant statement, albiet an unfalsifiable one.

It's a truism that abstract religious dogma is unfalsifiable. What is more interesting to me, is how many of the beliefs held by atheists take on the same structural assumptions, forming a Spinozan ontology which rejects specific tenets of various religions while unknowingly inheriting their underlying ontological paradigms. The concept of "something from nothing" is a flagrant example, as indicated by the OP.

At 9/10/2016 11:53:47 AM, Furyan5 wrote:Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical.

Ironically, this is an illogical statement in itself as it violates the law of non-contradiction. To se what I mean let's break down what you're saying into a logic statement, by defining X as theism your post can be translated as:

"Based on the fact that the universe is precisely the age that it is, we can conclude that if you say X then what you are saying is invalid and if you say anything not X then what you are saying is invalid"

So we know right away that something is wrong here because you are saying that no matter whether someone says 'X' or they say 'not X' then what they say is, according to you, illogical. As pointed out before this violates the law of non-contradiction and your post itself is therefore illogical. But all this shows it that your original premise is nonsense, we can dig a bit deeper than that.

To say that "it's false that X is false" does not necessitate that it is true, outside of logical analysis, which precisely dictates that it is only concerned with propositions with a T or F value. This is what is meant when we say that a statement is "not even wrong."

It's even simpler than that... Outside of logical analysis the law of non-contradiction does not even apply.

Of course, the OP takes logic for granted in dismissing "something form nothing" as logically impossible, so he's not exactly in the position to ignore logic.

This whole line of criticism seems to be dodging the real point of the OP. It seems quite clear to me what is meant if we say, that it seems logically impossible both for there to be an infinite regress of explanations, but also for there to be some arbitrary stopping point in the trail. I agree that my response actually over-complicated it a bit. The point is precisely to pose the question of whether this either-or really does exhaust the scope of metaphysical possibilities. The logical refutation Discipulus made seems like begging the question, insofar as he's just reaffirming the binary either-or status of the choice which the OP was attempting to question.

Does this boil down to anymore than we are missing part of the puzzle? A lot of very clever people have tried to make sense of these mysteries and paradoxes, and still they are unresolved. I firmly believe we will find the missing piece, or at least we have to keep on looking. What I can't do is accept the supernatural as a substitute for proper understanding. I don't know what the solution to these paradoxes is, but I know what isn't a solution.

The question is eternal, why something and not nothing. The problem is science cannot solve this as it descends into greater and greater depths of why. The religion most of us have come to solve it doesn't resolve our fears either. We just have to accept some answers are unsolvable and that the universe simply had no beginning. Science already is moving in that directions with a multiverse; but to explain the multiverse perhaps would entail a super multiverse. The only answer that appears logical is that we are a transient existence of endless time.

At 9/10/2016 11:53:47 AM, Furyan5 wrote:Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical.

Ironically, this is an illogical statement in itself as it violates the law of non-contradiction. To se what I mean let's break down what you're saying into a logic statement, by defining X as theism your post can be translated as:

"Based on the fact that the universe is precisely the age that it is, we can conclude that if you say X then what you are saying is invalid and if you say anything not X then what you are saying is invalid"

So we know right away that something is wrong here because you are saying that no matter whether someone says 'X' or they say 'not X' then what they say is, according to you, illogical. As pointed out before this violates the law of non-contradiction and your post itself is therefore illogical. But all this shows it that your original premise is nonsense, we can dig a bit deeper than that.

To say that "it's false that X is false" does not necessitate that it is true, outside of logical analysis, which precisely dictates that it is only concerned with propositions with a T or F value. This is what is meant when we say that a statement is "not even wrong."

It's even simpler than that... Outside of logical analysis the law of non-contradiction does not even apply.

Of course, the OP takes logic for granted in dismissing "something form nothing" as logically impossible, so he's not exactly in the position to ignore logic.

This whole line of criticism seems to be dodging the real point of the OP. It seems quite clear to me what is meant if we say, that it seems logically impossible both for there to be an infinite regress of explanations, but also for there to be some arbitrary stopping point in the trail. I agree that my response actually over-complicated it a bit. The point is precisely to pose the question of whether this either-or really does exhaust the scope of metaphysical possibilities. The logical refutation Discipulus made seems like begging the question, insofar as he's just reaffirming the binary either-or status of the choice which the OP was attempting to question.

There is one more possibility. One that answers why then, without requiring the existence of anything before it. One that gives a purpose to creation. I'm sure some of you believe in the technological singularity. Hawkins himself believes it's inevitable that through technology we enhance our abilities or create machines smarter than us, who in turn create ever smarter machines. An all-knowing, immortal being is the logical conclusion. Such a being could conceivably create the technology to create the universe and send this technology back in time. It would also answer the question, how life evolved. And why do all this? To exist.Far fetched, yes. Yet more logical than any other theory. It reduces the odds of random probability to 1 and matches every provable scientific discovery.

At 9/10/2016 11:53:47 AM, Furyan5 wrote:Both theists and atheists views of the creation of the universe are flawed in one aspect. Neither views explain why it occurred, when it did. Approximately 13.8 billion years ago according to the latest calculations, nothing became something. Why not 15 billion? Why happen at all? An uncaused cause is illogical.